29 April 2015

Bargny, Senegal

Swedish National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Swedish Partnership for Global Responsibility International Trade Policy Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs IH-Globalt ansvar, 1103 33 Stockholm Tel: (46-8) 405 1000 Fax: (46-8) 723 1176 Email: registrator@gov.se; ga@foreign.ministry.se Dear Sir/Madam, It is with great concern that Takkom Jerry and Lumiere Synergie Developpement (LSD) (Annex 1) are writing to you about the Sendou coal power plant project that is currently being built by the Swedish company Nykomb Synergetics AB in Senegal. As we will detail below, we believe that Nykomb has not complied with Chapters I (Concepts and Principles), II (General Policies), IV (Human Rights), and VI (Environment) of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (hereinafter “the Guidelines”). We thus request the good offices of the Swedish NCP to help resolve our dispute with Nykomb by facilitating a dialogue aimed at bringing Nykomb into compliance with the Guidelines. To supplement the allegations and requests outlined below, the following annexes are enclosed along with our complaint:

1. Annex 1: Annex1-Details of the parties involved in the specific instance 2. Annex 2: Letter from Takkom Jerry to CES (15/12/2103) and response from CES

(6/2/2014) 3. Annex 3: LSD report on Sendou Coal power plant 4. Annex 4: Sendou ESIA -French-Full report 5. Annex 5: Sendou ESIA-English-Executive summary report

Background and context

As you may know, Nykomb Synergetics AB Group1 (hereinafter “Nykomb”) is a Swedish company based in Stockholm that offers process and power systems, engineering consultancy, and project development services. The company has special expertise in the conversion of fossil, biomass, and waste fuels into power and chemicals, using gas and steam turbine configurations.

In 20082, Nykomb won a bid on behalf of a consortium of companies3 to develop a 125

MW coal-fired power plant commissioned by the National Electricity Board (SENELEC).

1 http://www.managenergy.net/actors/481 2 http://www.pfie.com/nykomb-a-foot-in-the-door/21108244.fullarticle 3 Nykomb Synergetics led a bid in the tender launched by Senegalese government in 2005/2008 for the Sendou coal

power plant project on behalf of Compagnie d’Electricite du Senegal SA (CES). CES is a consortium that was

incorporated to develop and operate the Sendou power station. The consortium was led by Nykomb Synergetics

Page 2 / 6

The project entails an investment of CFAF 118 billion and using coal as the basic fuel,

through a "Build, Own, Operate (BOO)" arrangement. SENELEC has committed to

purchase 925 GWh per year from the power plant for a period of 25 years.

The so-called ‘Sendou’ power plant is located in Bargny village, 32 km from the city of

Dakar. This site of 29 ha is between the traditional villages of Bargny and Minam, near a

fishing zone, a workplace of about more than 1,000 women and some residential houses.

But in 19954, this exact site was given by the Municipality of Bargny to approximately

1,600 people from communities affected by costal erosion to relocate their families

(Annex3 LSD report on Sendou coal power plant, and see ‘annexes 4 and 5).

Against this background, the Sendou power plant Environmental and Social Impact

Assessment (“ESIA”, Annex 4 and 5) was done in March 2009, and in November 2009, the

African Development Bank (AFDB) approved a senior loan of up to Euros 55 million for

Nykomb to build the Sendou Power Project, a debt with a maturity of 14 years.

However, due to a lack of additional funds, the project was delayed for four years. In

November 20135, full funding was finally secured, and implementation of the project

officially began in January 2014 amid severe opposition of local communities6.

Since the public consultation held on Saturday 28th February 2009 in Bargny, we as local

communities have clearly expressed our opposition to the project, with our former

Mayor in the frontline (Annex3: LSD report on Sendou coal power plant, and see

‘annexe’ 4). Because we care about our health, our environment and livelihood, we

asked to the promotors to relocate it in another place, namely the MIFERSO site.

Non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines

Within this context, we as affected communities believe that Nykomb has not complied

with OECD Guidelines provisions related to both environmental as well as social/human

rights issues.

With regard to environmental issues:

First of all, the Senegalese environmental law (loi n°2001-01 du 15 Janvier 2001 portant

Code de l’environnement7, article 13) requires that projects such as Sendou respect a

minimum distance of 500 meters between a classified installation of category 1 and

housing. We observe that the Sendou power plant terrain is located at very close

Development AB and it consists of Vatten Power Consult, Maytas, BHEL, BMCE Bank, Standard Bank of South

Africa and Comptoir Balland-Brugneaux. 4 The Municipality carried out 2 housing estates: Minam 1 first in 1994 and the secondly, Minam 2 in 2007. 5 http://www.aps.sn/articles.php?id_article=120721 6 http://www.echos2rues.com/bargny-manifestation-des-populations-contre-la-centrale-charbon/ 7 http://www.gouv.sn/Code-de-l-Environnement.html

Page 3 / 6

proximity to several inhabited structures. We are unable to verify if the exact distance

between the power plant terrain and the inhabited structures is greater than 500

meters. We therefore request that Nykomb provide evidence that the distance is greater

than 500 meters and that it is therefore in compliance with this provision of Senegalese

environmental law. If Nykomb cannot provide evidence to this effect, it would represent

non-compliance1 with the OECD Guidelines Chapter I, § 2, which clarifies that, “Obeying

domestic laws is the first obligation of enterprises.”

Beyond this, the ESIA (Annex 5 and Annex 4, p.12-14) described a range of potential

negative impacts the developers were to have addressed prior to or during

implementation of the project:

1. Thermal pollution of the sea (See Annex 4, p. 119) through release of hot water

and water pollution due to evacuation of wastewater from the plant/ sweep up

of small fish and mollusk resulting from the operation of the sea-water intake

for the cooling system: The fishing zone is located in front of the project site and

local communities depend on sea resources for their livelihood. We are not aware

of any measures Nykomb has taken to prevent this impact;

2. Alteration of the air quality due to hazardous pollutants (NOx, SO2, CO) and dust

emissions during the generation of electric energy and impacts on health (See Annex

4, pp.142-143, 165-169 and 185): Communities have the right to a clean, safe and

healthy environment. But they are not aware of health impact mitigation measures

that the project will implement to prevent adverse impacts on the respiratory health

of the communities neighboring the coal power plant;

3. Contribution to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 in

particular): The plant’s annual consumption of an average of 400,000 tonnes of coal

will entail a drastic increase in GHG emissions. The area is already vulnerable to

coastal erosion from climate change, but this issue is not well analyzed or addressed

in the ESIA (See Annex 4 pp.150-151).

Furthermore, with regards to the delay in implementing the project (five years passed between the publication of the ESIA and the implementation of the project), we think that the ESIA’s data should be updated to include new developments – including an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the Sendou plant, the cement factory SOCOCIM, and an additional 250 MW coal power plant now being planned by the Korean company Kepco in the same area. We regard the 2009 ESIA as outdated and no longer relevant unless it is updated.

Lastly, Nykomb has failed to demonstrate that it has developed and implemented an

Environmental Management Plan which is called for by the ESIA (Annex 5, pp.15-21 and

Annex 4, pp. 243-255) and is expected under the OECD Guidelines.

We believe that all of this taken together reveals that Nykomb has not complied with

the following provision of the OECD Guidelines:

Page 4 / 6

- Chapter II, §10, which states that enterprises should, “Carry out risk-based due

diligence, for example by incorporating it into their enterprise risk management

systems, to identify, prevent and mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts

as described in paragraphs 11 and 12, and account for how these impacts are

addressed.”

- Chapter II, §11, which states that enterprises should, “Avoid causing or

contributing to adverse impacts on matters covered by the Guidelines, through

their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur.”

- Chapter VI, §1a, §1b, and §1c. These provisions clarify that enterprises should

“Establish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to

the enterprise, including: a) collection and evaluation of adequate and timely

information regarding the environmental, health, and safety impacts of their

activities; b) establishment of measurable objectives and, where appropriate,

targets for improved environmental performance and resource utilisation,

including periodically reviewing the continuing relevance of these objectives;

where appropriate, targets should be consistent with relevant national policies

and international environmental commitments; and c) regular monitoring and

verification of progress toward environmental, health, and safety objectives or

targets.”

- Chapter VI, §2a, which states that enterprises should “provide the public and

workers with adequate, measureable and verifiable (where applicable) and timely

information on the potential environment, health and safety impacts of the

activities of the enterprise.”

- Chapter VI, §2b, which states that enterprises should “engage in adequate and

timely communication and consultation with the communities directly affected by

the environmental, health and safety policies of the enterprise and by their

implementation.”

- Chapter VI, §3, which states that enterprises should, “Assess, and address in

decision-making, the foreseeable environmental, health, and safety-related

impacts associated with the processes, goods and services of the enterprise over

their full life cycle with a view to avoiding or, when unavoidable, mitigating

them. Where these proposed activities may have significant environmental,

health, or safety impacts, and where they are subject to a decision of a

competent authority, prepare an appropriate environmental impact assessment.”

With regard to social and human rights issues:

To begin with, Nykomb has not engaged meaningfully with local communities to allow

opportunities for their views and interests to be taken into account in decision making.

Adequate and timely information with regard to the negative impacts and mitigation

measures has not been provided to affected communities. This represents a failure to

comply with OECD Guidelines Chapter II, §14, which states that enterprises should

“Engage with relevant stakeholders in order to provide meaningful opportunities for

Page 5 / 6

their views to be taken into account in relation to planning and decision making for

projects or other activities that may significantly impact local communities.”

Second, the project will directly affect the human rights of more than 1,000

fisherwomen (Khlecom), who will lose their means of livelihood because the site where

they fish will be made off limits to them. The ESIA identified this impact (See Annex 4,

pp.177-179), but Nykomb has not taken measures to avoid the impact.

Third, community members who have already been impacted by the project and

resettled have not been compensated. The ESIA clearly identified the resettlement as

an impact (See Annex 4, pp.177 -179), which is specifically related to the requisition of

1,433 parcels of land belonging to local communities. That land was given to families

affected by coastal erosion in 1995 (Annex 3 LSD report on Sendou coal power plant, and

see ‘Annexes’ 3 and 5), which progresses at about one to three meters per year in

Bargny. To date, however, only 10 individuals have been compensated for the loss of

buildings (Annex 3: LSD report on Sendou coal power plant and see ‘annexe’6) and no

compensation at all has been provided for the loss of land.

Fourth, the project will block access to an elementary school and a number of sites that

are sacred to the community (namely, a cemetery and two cultural heritage sites) (See

Annex 4, p.185).

We believe that the second, third, and fourth points explained above demonstrate

Nykom’s failure to comply with OECD Guidelines Chapter IV, §2, which states that

enterprises should “avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and

address such impacts when they occur,” as well as Chapter IV, §5, which clarifies that

enterprises should “Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size,

the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human

rights impacts.”

Previous contact between the complainants and the company

Takkom Jerry has contacted CES whose acting on behalf of Nykomb on the 15,

December 2013 (See Annex 2)8 raising community concerns about failure to conduct

appropriate human rights and environmental due diligence, and the social and

environmental impacts of the project, particularly the impacts on the fisherwomen

working in the vicinity of the site. CES did not provide a meaningful reply, but instead

simply insisted that the project complies with the standards of the World Bank and the

site has been bought legally by them (See Annex 2)9.

8 Takkom Jerry has contacted CES (Mohamed Seguiri, Badara Diop) several times by mail and phone. Takkom Jerry

also reached out by phone to Mr. Louis Claude Norland SUZOR, CES General Manager, and Nykomb in Sweden. 9 Mohamed Seguiri replied on behalf of CES in a letter to Takkom Jerry on the 6 February 2014.

Page 6 / 6